On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 18:22:23 GMT, Roger Lane Glumm wrote:

>So far, I haven't disagreed with a single thing you have ever posted
>to this newsgroup, but on this you are dead wrong. A scanned picture
>can be zoomed and panned with far greater smoothness and control than
>you can ever achieve with a camera. If you scan at a higher resolution
>than the 72 to 75 pixel resolution recommended for video, you can even
>keep sharpness as you zoom in to enlarge a portion of the image. At
>least this is what I have found with Ulead MediaStudio Pro, which, is
>a fairly inexpensive upgrade for the original poster who already has
>Ulead Video Studio.
>
>As to other topics, I look to your opinions for guidance.

Thanks for the comments.
Perhaps you need a better tripod...? ;-)
Comparing scans of 35mm slides (even at high
resolution), and shooting a slide directly
with the camcorder, the stills quality on
video (without zooming toward enlargement)
has produced more satisfactory results for
me. For larger images, for panning/zooming,
shooting prints (with the pans/zooms) has
been more satisfactory for me than using
the pan filter in Premiere. The results look
smooth and natural, without the "glittering"
I often get while trying to move/zoom still
images digitally (though this does offer
control advantages, as you point out...).